[EL] ELB News and Commentary 7/11/17

Tue Jul 11 20:36:04 PDT 2017

“Emails Pose Potential Problem for Trump Jr. After Meeting With Russian Lawyer”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93774>
Posted on July 11, 2017 8:28 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93774> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Jacob Gershman and Nicole Hong <https://www.wsj.com/articles/emails-pose-potential-problem-for-trump-jr-after-meeting-with-russian-lawyer-1499809060> for the WSJ:
That Mr. Trump Jr. came away empty-handed may be a mitigating factor, but as a defense, it is limited. Soliciting a foreign campaign contribution can be illegal even if the donation doesn’t pan out. What matters is that there was an expectation of getting something valuable.
Opposition research on a political foe could be considered something of value, particularly if the supplier of the information spent money to obtain it, election-law experts say. The Federal Election Commission has said the definition can encompass goods or services, like air travel or food, provided free or at below-market rates. Information can be a gift too, like polling data or donor lists.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93774&title=%E2%80%9CEmails%20Pose%20Potential%20Problem%20for%20Trump%20Jr.%20After%20Meeting%20With%20Russian%20Lawyer%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

“Voter fraud commission very quickly runs into roadblocks”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93772>
Posted on July 11, 2017 8:22 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93772> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Carl Leubsdorf f<http://www.thedailyworld.com/opinion/voter-fraud-commission-very-quickly-runs-into-roadblocks/>or the Dallas Morning News.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93772&title=%E2%80%9CVoter%20fraud%20commission%20very%20quickly%20runs%20into%20roadblocks%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“Civic Groups Sue Indiana Secretary of State, Say Release of Personal Voter Data Is Illegal Under State Law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93770>
Posted on July 11, 2017 8:04 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93770> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Release from Brennan Center:<http://www.brennancenter.org/press-release/civic-groups-sue-indiana-secretary-state-say-release-personal-voter-data-illegal-under>
Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson said she will give some voter information to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity as requested, but Indiana civic groups and others argue in a lawsuit<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/LOWV_NAACP_Complaint_for_Declaratory_Relief.pdf> submitted to Lake County court today that doing so violates state law. Lawson is a member of the controversial Commission, which is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, the former governor of Indiana.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93770&title=%E2%80%9CCivic%20Groups%20Sue%20Indiana%20Secretary%20of%20State%2C%20Say%20Release%20of%20Personal%20Voter%20Data%20Is%20Illegal%20Under%20State%20Law%E2%80%9D>
Posted in The Voting Wars<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>

“How Much Legal Trouble is Donald Trump Jr. In?”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93768>
Posted on July 11, 2017 5:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93768> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Joan Biskupic<http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-legal-problems/index.html> for CNN.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93768&title=%E2%80%9CHow%20Much%20Legal%20Trouble%20is%20Donald%20Trump%20Jr.%20In%3F%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Donald Trump Jr. and Russia: What the Law Says”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93766>
Posted on July 11, 2017 5:50 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93766> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Charlie Savage NYT explainer.<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/collusion-trump-russia-campaign.html>
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93766&title=%E2%80%9CDonald%20Trump%20Jr.%20and%20Russia%3A%20What%20the%20Law%20Says%E2%80%9D>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

“Watchdogs say Trump’s new voter fraud panel pick rounds out ‘four horsemen’ of suppression”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93764>
Posted on July 11, 2017 4:56 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93764> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Celeste Katz f<https://mic.com/articles/181965/watchdogs-say-trumps-new-voter-fraud-panel-pick-rounds-out-four-horsemen-of-suppression?utm_campaign=ckatz+twitter&utm_content=bufferecae0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com#.0YOwkRbfU>or Mic.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93764&title=%E2%80%9CWatchdogs%20say%20Trump%E2%80%99s%20new%20voter%20fraud%20panel%20pick%20rounds%20out%20%E2%80%98four%20horsemen%E2%80%99%20of%20suppression%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

In 2004, FEC Voted 5-1 to Find Grover Norquist Contact List Provided to Bush-Cheney Committee Was a “Thing of Value” for Campaign Finance Purposes<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93762>
Posted on July 11, 2017 2:38 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93762> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
More evidence that a Russian government offer to provide opposition research to the Trump campaign would be considered a ‘thing of value” for purposes of the law barring the solicitation of things of value from foreign entities (as Donald Trump Jr. is now alleged to have done):
In MUR 5409 (2004), the Federal Election Commission voted 5-1 to accept the general counsel’s finding <http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/00002BF9.pdf> that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (a corporation) provided a “thing of value” to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. It was a list of conservative activists in 37 states.  Some of the information may have been publicly available when Norquist gave it to Ken Mehlman of the campaign. The General Counsel found that this was a prohibited corporate contribution and that Bush-Cheney violated the law by failing to report it. But it found the list had so little value that the General Counsel did not recommend pursuing the matter further.
Commissioner Toner alone dissented. <http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/00002BFE.pdf> He believed the matter should be dismissed as a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93762&title=In%202004%2C%20FEC%20Voted%205-1%20to%20Find%20Grover%20Norquist%20Contact%20List%20Provided%20to%20Bush-Cheney%20Committee%20Was%20a%20%E2%80%9CThing%20of%20Value%E2%80%9D%20for%20Campaign%20Finan>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>

Common Cause Files FEC and DOJ Complaints Against Donald Trump Jr.<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93759>
Posted on July 11, 2017 11:41 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93759> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
To read the DOJ complaint filed yesterday, click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpolicy-and-litigation%2Fletters-to-government-officials%2Fdoj-fec-complaints-filed-against-trump-jr.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C9627c4bedb3d4d521ee708d4c87f9403%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636353897648742563&sdata=sEW7btI9pgWUFpl%2BeY5UrnuJetkBucWX3DpAGYyCaUE%3D&reserved=0>.
To read the FEC complaint filed yesterday, click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpress%2Fpress-releases%2Fdoj-fec-complaints-filed-against-donald-trump-jr-and-trump-campaign-for-illegal-solicitation-of-contribution-from-foreign-national.pdf&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C9627c4bedb3d4d521ee708d4c87f9403%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C1%7C636353897648742563&sdata=%2FqRCQmsLS1G%2BxqeJzr3Etb4L3iWzp0CC7uu9vDDO7LE%3D&reserved=0>.
To view the release online, click here<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commoncause.org%2Fpress%2Fpress-releases%2Fdonald-trump-jr-e-mails-are-smoking-gun-confirming-illegal-solicitation-from-foreign-national.html&data=02%7C01%7Cdvance%40commoncause.org%7C9627c4bedb3d4d521ee708d4c87f9403%7Cdb39e4b4de324cf9b66e9d02d8172178%7C0%7C0%7C636353897648742563&sdata=yPZ1BMMRIRtOKzlNfQkKrwOLFdC9OJCYcHyneLZ1sQI%3D&reserved=0>.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93759&title=Common%20Cause%20Files%20FEC%20and%20DOJ%20Complaints%20Against%20Donald%20Trump%20Jr.>
Posted in campaign finance<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, campaigns<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>, chicanery<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=12>

Anything of Value Also Read Broadly in Context of Federal Bribery Laws (Menendez Case)<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93757>
Posted on July 11, 2017 11:31 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93757> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Following up on my “thing of value” posts<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752> related to Donald Trump Jr. and possible solicitation of foreign contributions charge, here’s something analogous from the bribery context:
U.S. v. Menendez, 132 F. Supp. 3d 635 (D.N.J. 2015):
… bribery under § 201(b)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS201&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RB&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_a83b000018c76>, which is defined as the corrupt acceptance of “anything of value” with the intent to be influenced in the performance of an official act, turns on a subjective definition of “anything of value.” See, e.g., United States v. Renzi, 769 F.3d 731, 744 (9th Cir.2014)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2034546199&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_744&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_744> (The term “anything of value” is “defined broadly to include ‘the value which the defendant subjectively attaches to the items received.’ ” (quoting United States v. Gorman, 807 F.2d 1299, 1305 (6th Cir.1986)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1986163082&pubNum=0000350&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_1305&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_1305>)); United States v. Williams, 705 F.2d 603, 623 (2d Cir.1983)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1983117987&pubNum=0000350&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_350_623&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_350_623> ( “Corruption of office occurs when the officeholder agrees to misuse his office in the expectation of gain, whether or not he has correctly assessed the worth of the bribe.”). Notwithstanding the statement in Citizens United that independent expenditures have no actual value to candidates, a jury could find that Defendant Menendez placed value, albeit subjective, on the earmarked donations given to Majority PAC by Melgen.
Second, § 201(b)(1)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS201&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RB&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_3fed000053a85> criminalizes the making of a corrupt promise to a public official “to give anything of value to any other person or entity,with intent to influence any official act,” and § 201(b)(2)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS201&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RB&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_c0ae00006c482> criminalizes corruptly seeking “anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act.” (emphasis added). Public officials have been convicted for being influenced in the performance of their duties in return for bribes paid to third parties. See United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 341–42 (4th Cir.2012)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2027375035&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_341&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_341> (Payments made to a business controlled by a Congressman’s wife in exchange for official action constituted bribery.); United States v. Siegelman, 640 F.3d 1159, 1165–66 (11th Cir.2011)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2025251510&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_1165&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_1165> (Governor was guilty of federal funds bribery and honest services fraud after exchanging a seat on a state board for a donation to a foundation campaigning for a ballot initiative to establish a lottery to fund education.); cf. United States v. Spano, 421 F.3d 599, 603 (7th Cir.2005)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=2007223924&pubNum=0000506&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_603&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_603> (“A participant in a scheme to defraud is guilty even if he is an altruist and all the benefits of the fraud accrue to other participants … the public is deprived of its servants’ honest services no matter who receives the proceeds.”) (internal citations omitted). The indictment alleges, among other Charges, that “Menendez sought and received from Salomon Melgen … approximately $300,000 for Majority PAC that was earmarked for the New Jersey Senate race … in return for Menendez’s advocacy at the highest levels of HHS on behalf of Melgen….” Indict. ¶ 259. Even if contributions to Majority PAC had no objective value to Menendez, they unquestionably had value to Majority PAC as an entity, and § 201(b)(2)<https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=18USCAS201&originatingDoc=I04b55933667811e5a807ad48145ed9f1&refType=RB&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.History*oc.Search)#co_pp_c0ae00006c482> criminalizes corruptly seeking anything of value, even for another person or entity, in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. Cf. Siegelman, at 1169–70 (allowing federal funds bribery conviction of a governor based on a corrupt donation to an issue advocacy campaign).
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93757&title=Anything%20of%20Value%20Also%20Read%20Broadly%20in%20Context%20of%20Federal%20Bribery%20Laws%20(Menendez%20Case)>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

Relevant to Donald Trump Jr., FEC in 2004 Read the Term “Thing of Value” Broadly When It Comes to Foreign Contributions<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752>
Posted on July 11, 2017 9:38 am<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93752> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
Following up on this post,<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93740> there are remaining questions about whether providing “dirt” or files related to Hillary Clinton from Russian government sources could be considered a “thing of value” for purposes of the law barring the solicitation of contributions from foreign entities. I’ve already pointed<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93733>to a 1990 advisory opinion of the FEC so suggesting, in the context of providing polling information (something intangible) free of charge. Here’s another<http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007-22.pdf>, from 2007, that is even strong on the question of the breadth of the foreign contribution ban, even as to those things whose value may be “difficult to ascertain” (my emphases added):
Question 4. May your authorized committee accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates?
No, your authorized committee may not accept election materials used in previous Canadian campaigns that are provided without charge by Canadian third party candidates. Your authorized committee may, however, expend campaign funds to purchase the materials. You may also use personal funds to purchase such materials.
As noted above, the Act and Commission regulations prohibit foreign nationals, directly or indirectly, from making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal State, or local election.” 2 U.S.C. 441e(a)(1)(A); see also
11 CFR 110.20(b). “Anything of value” includes all in-kind contributions, including the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1). “Usual and normal charge” is defined as the price of goods in the market from which they ordinarily would have been purchased at the time of the contribution, or the commercially reasonable rate prevailing at the time the services were rendered. See 11 CFR 100.52(d)(2).
Here, you propose accepting without charge, from Canadian third party and independent candidates, certain printed materials used in previous Canadian campaigns. The materials would include flyers, advertisements, door hangers, tri-folds, signs, and other printed material. You plan to use these items to assist you in your own campaign. Although the value of these materials may be nominal or difficult to ascertain, they have some value. The provision of these items without charge would relieve your campaign of the expense that it would otherwise incur to obtain such materials. Thus, the provision of such items without charge would constitute a contribution and, as such, would be prohibited, particularly in light of the broad scope of the prohibition on contributions from foreign nationals.See, e.g., 120 Cong. Rec. 8782 (Mar. 28, 1974) (statement of Sen. Bentsen, author of the amendment prohibiting foreign national contributions) (“I am saying that contributions by foreign nationals are wrong, and they have no place in the American political system.”); see also Explanation and Justification for Regulations on Contribution Limitations and Prohibitions, 67 Fed. Reg. 69940 (Nov. 19, 2002) (“As indicated by the title of section 303 of BCRA, “Strengthening Foreign Money Ban,” Congress amended 2 U.S.C. 441e to further delineate and expand the ban on contributions, donations, and other things of value by foreign nationals.”).
The situation presented here is similar to that considered by the Commission in Advisory Opinion 1981-51 (Metzenbaum). In that opinion, the Commission concluded that the provision of an original work of art by a foreign national artist to a political committee for use by the committee in fundraising was a contribution and, hence, prohibited by 2 U.S.C. 441e. Similarly here, you plan to use the printed materials from previous Canadian campaigns to assist you in your own campaign. As such, their provision without charge by foreign nationals would constitute a prohibited in-kind contribution to your campaign. Nor may you solicit, accept, or receive such goods from foreign nationals. See 2 U.S.C. 441e(a)(2); 11 CFR 110.20(g) and (h). Your committee may, however, expend campaign funds to purchase such materials because such use of campaign funds would be an otherwise authorized expenditure in connection with your campaign for Federal office and would not constitute a conversion to personal use. See 2 U.S.C. 439a(a)(1); 11 CFR 113.2. You may also use personal funds to purchase such materials. See 11 CFR 110.10.
[hare]<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D93752&title=Relevant%20to%20Donald%20Trump%20Jr.%2C%20FEC%20in%202004%20Read%20%20the%20Term%20%E2%80%9CThing%20of%20Value%E2%80%9D%20Broadly%20When%20It%20Comes%20to%20Foreign%20Contributions>
Posted in Uncategorized<http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org<http://electionlawblog.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170712/3732b32a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170712/3732b32a/attachment.png>